For fucks sake, Egypt is in Africa, it makes it an African country, making it's people Africans. But I'm sure according to our local idiot, Canadians and Mexicans aren't North American either.

~ It's not like that's where humans started out in the first place.
~ It's not like the Isonghee (Congo) invented the abacus
~ yeah agriculture and animal domestication, what the hell use were those.
~ the first masonary stone tombs
~ Writing (first known was from southern Egypt)ancient Kemet (as the ancient Egyptians called their kingdom, a term dating from ca. 3100 B.C.E.) is also the cradle of Black African civilization.

You go through at least 400 year period where you're entire young adult population is abducted and sold to other continents for cheap labor. Then have one of those continents continue to colonialize your continent for another 100 years, then just up and leave your country after having stripped it clean of it's resources, and see how quickly you can recover from that.

Oh, and the Ancient Egyptians were so far ahead of their time in agriculture that many of their farming methods are still being employed today along the Nile. And fine examples of ancient architecture still stand throughout Africa today.

The excuse-makers seem to conveniently forget that many non-black countries were also violently invaded and colonized at some point in time. Vietnam was invaded several times by China and then by the French, India by the Moguls and the British, China itself was subjugated by the Mongols, the European powers and Japan, etc.

Of course, these countries have their own problems but overall their historical achievements are far superior to those of sub-saharan Africa.

Just because you don't know about things doesn't make your silly ideas true. I could fill the page with examples of how the overwhelming majority of Africa was agriculturally capable and inventing at an early iron or late bronze age level before the Muslim spread and well before European colonial imperialism. Taking into account population density, climate and available resources there's no reason to believe that there's a racially integral lack of ability.

I'm not saying that they never created anything, it's just that their achievements are quite modest. The ruins of Zimbabwe or the Ethiopian churches are exceptional in the context of black Africa, but they are not very impressive compared to what was being built in Europe, the Arab-muslim world, Asia or even Mesoamerica at the time.

Carthage rivalled Rome for control of the Mediterranean. The standard of living there was higher than in Rome, and only an insanely costly war (of the scorched earth variety) led to them not having been the single most powerful empire the ancient world ever saw.

Ok, but they weren't black. Can you name me one black African civilization that contributed anything signficant to the progress of human civilization? Can you name me one significant black African city that had an impact on the course of world history? Can you name me one black African country that's developed to be anything like the countries of Europe, Asia, and the United States? I could be wrong, but all I see is a cesspool of half-naked people living in huts. :-\

BTW, a mask or a mud building in a pit does not count, as neither of these has brought anything substantial into human civilization.

Oh yeah, let's conveniently forget about all of the iron working, agricultural, political and economy technologies sub-saharan africans brought about in their own region without the benefit of the silkroad to transfer ideas and foreign technologies.

Sub sahran africa suffers a lack of a perenial grass suitable for use as a food source.
Asia has rice and millet.
The arabs have wheat.
Europe has oats.
these grains were necessary to the foundation of stable, city building, civilizations.

Without a staple grain, sub saharan africa could not build a stable civilization.

Sub saharan africa could only build temporary civilizations that collapsed when famine hit them. Dependant upon cultivation of beans and root vegetables (neither of which keep well), sub saharn africa was forced to keep one foot in the tribal village, and the other in the nomadic encampment.

By the time a staple grain was finaly introduced by arab traders, sub saharan africa had been left too far behind. There was simply not enough time to build the necessary social structures to facilitate the change.
What had taken thousands of years in europe, could not happen in mere centurys in africa.

Granted that several small city states did rise on foundations of trade... but always as isolated entitys.
And every single one was destroyed by seafaring empires with cannon.

Very simply, sub saharn africa lacked the most important resource... A staple grain.

Sub sahran africa suffers a lack of a perenial grass suitable for use as a food source.
Asia has rice and millet.
The arabs have wheat.
Europe has oats.
these grains were necessary to the foundation of stable, city building, civilizations.

D Laurier., unless I'm mistaken, crops such as millet and rice have existed for thousands of years in Africa.

The African variety of rice did not extend past the boundaries of the Niger River, it was not a widespread crop nor was it particularly reliable. Millet on the other hand, was virtually non-existant in Africa before it was introduced from the northern regions in Africa down to the south very late in the game.

"The African variety of rice did not extend past the boundaries of the Niger River, it was not a widespread crop nor was it particularly reliable. Millet on the other hand, was virtually non-existant in Africa before it was introduced from the northern regions in Africa down to the south very late in the game."

Most crops aren't native to Europe too. And besides, the most common type of millet originated in sub-saharan Africa. I'm also quite sure that wheat was introduced in Ethiopia and Sudan several thousand years ago.

Population density and ecology are the factors here. The potential is visible but the climate to foster major city structures (which in turn foster megalomaniacs and religious empires, which in turn foster the sort of incredible tourist attractions you're thinking about) didn't come together as frequently. We could make the same comparison about the New York metro area and North Dakota.

TRAC: POPULATION DENSITY AND ECOLOGY. What are you not getting here?

Yeah I only gave two examples but I'm not going to flood the entire post with 80 pictures that take ten minutes to load. Those are just solid examples. If you want more Google it yourself.

That's not a "basic" structure, nor is it made of mud. It's hewn from the same red stone that surrounds it and displays a solid understanding of geometric structure. Now Stonehenge, that was primitive.

The mask displays a high level of craftsmanship and an understanding of pattern, likeness and aesthetic.

Together these things indicate high level cognition and development of craftsmanship disproving Duirward's "inferior human" statement QED. I alos disproved the "never learnt (sic) how to grow crops, barely invented tools" bullshit. There was clearly iron and agriculture in many African societies.

If all you see is half naked people in grass huts then all you're looking at is the most remote Central African tribes in the savanna. If I only looked at America's Appalachian dirt holes I could say America was comprised mostly of dirty, toothless people in tin roof shacks and old trailers that would be too pathetic to be on the Jerry Springer show. Of course that would be innacurate since I'd be confusing "a part of America" with "America".

Now I ask you. What is a substantial contribution to human civilization? Take the greatest artwork of the western world. Michaelangelo's David, The Mona Lisa, whatever you want. Did any single piece of art bring anything substantial to human civilization? Did any one building bring anything substantial to human civilization? Would human culture be that different if there was one less Greek Temple of if Rembrandt skipped a self portrait? Probably not, so let's play by your rules: No single building or piece of art made by Europeans or Asians counts as none of them have brought anything substantial to civilization.

What is a major contribution?

If you're going solely by technology then you have a point. There's not much cutting edge, but on the other hand they've never trailed more than a century or two behind the curve either. Hardly an argument for black inferiority if you look at the constantly shifting map of technological disparity throughout the ages.

Art? Well artistically the African influence has been exceptional. African cloth designs were traded extensively in the days of exploration. African sculpture was a great influence on abstract art (Picasso loved the stuff). Most musical styles developed in America between 1800 and 1950 have at least subtle influence from the music brought over by the slave trade.

Changing the course of history? What, exactly does that mean? By and large that means conquering people. Continent A heads to continent B and crushes civilization C. I guess you have point there. Africa never had a grand unifying conquerer and thus never made it to the sort of Alexander/Ghengis Khan/Napolean level of intercontinental bloodbath that would get notice in your book.